I've rewritten my original idea from the "Don't let it out" forum and renamed it to the new title of my SCP draft. This has gone through major changes, revisions, and additions. I am hoping to post it soon, but I need some critique first. The SCP is heavily story-based one the reader hits the addenda. Tell me if I have anything unnecessary in the draft or examples of pieces that sound less clinical or professional than they should. Even just an opinion will help. Thanks! http://scpsandbox2.wikidot.com/captain-raptin

I would have ended the interview after "D-0215: That's…That's it?" For a professional with goals in an interview once those goals are met they are done. A majority of the interviews I have read on this site make it seem like the Foundation personnel try their best to keep those they interview calm to ensure cooperation. Right now it looks like the interviewer is intentionally trying to hurt D-0215 by telling them they will not be allowed to succeed and they are trying to make D-0215 angry.

When asked what SCP-XXXX wanted, instances of SCP-XXXX-1 explained that that the entity wanted to be free from the cavern that it was trapped in

If it wants to be free why did it stop Foundation teams from opening up the Cavern?

memories of it, and mental

No need for comma here.

is going to [REDACTED]

I dont really see why a redaction is used here. Currently the SCP itself is nothing more than a memnetic effect and the only possible line that expands on this is redacted.

sheilding in its structure

Shielding

Currently the entire story is based around a memnetic object that can communicate and influence the thoughts of humans to make them want to release it. The core concept is good however it lacks a hook to make the reader invested in the SCP, you could explore how and why the SCP is trapped in the cavern in the first place and why it wants to escape so badly. What would fixing our world mean?

An SCP needs to more than just an encyclopedia entry, it needs a story behind it. You have a good start with the idea, however on its own its an idea that has been explored many times over in various ways and you will need to provide it with a good story to make it stand out from the crowd. This could easily be woven in through the interview logs, I was becoming intrigued at what they were discussing, however the Redaction used when D talks about how the world will be improved it boring and destroys the story. A redaction should be used when the reader has a good idea at what the SCP does, yet you want to add a darker twist to make the imagination of the reader wonder why its been redacted. Without a good story implying what the SCP will do if it gets free, the redaction doesn't make much sense in the interview from the readers perspective. Good Luck with your Draft!

Wow, this is some of the best criticism I've ever gotten, thanks! I have been told before that I've needed a hook for my readers to become interested in my SCP but I'm not sure how to put one. I was trying to have one right in the beginning by putting something interesting or unusual in the Special Containment Procedures. That's what usually hooks me. Any suggestions? Also, I willwork on putting more of a story behind my idea. Thanks!

Greetings - to set the process of my thoughts, I must clarify that I tend to read draughts "cold" insofar as I rarely look at what is discussed previously (simply in a "skim" - if that). I do this to ensure my initial reactions are directly from the writing of the esceepee itself, thus giving a more direct feedback. Apologies if this means repetitions of already noted things.

First off (and I can claim some area of 'expertise' in this field) the tone of the interview to me, does not ring true. I will explain;

In my line of work - I deal with people who have very complex needs, many have some cognitive and mental health issues. Obsessive behaviour, auto-destructive behaviour, schizophrenia are all part of my daily work.
When any of the people I support get to a point of crisis and wish to attempt something that is not in their best interests, often in our role of support workers we have to perform a process of trying to discuss what is causing their issue and how to reduce their concerns to effectively "talk them down" from crisis point.
Our toolbox for this is varied, but mainly involves consciously avoiding escalating the situation with tone of voice, avoiding direct confrontation, empathetically working to develop a rapport with them.
We often need them to talk about their issue(s) so as to ensure that it is documented officially to define:

The cause

The effect(s) - both actual (and to some degree) potential

Supporting them to deal with it better in future

Documenting "triggers" to avoid repeats of crisis incidents.

Documenting successful outcomes, to enable us to provide a better level of support.

To clarify, we don't do this to simply be all "nice and caring". We also need to do it (in some instances) to avoid support staff and those we support from being at risk from serious injury from others or themselves in future.

Emotional abuse/distress - to both people we support and support staff from people we support.

Damage to personal property - ripped clothes, vandalism and arson.

Please collapse long posts. ~Zyn

To me, shouting at someone when you are trying glean information from them seems unprofessional and could end up in the required goals not being achieved.
More often, we have to read between the lines - glean what they are having a problem with by what they are not saying.
I feel if the approach from the interviewer was less aggressive and more empathic it would help them gaining much more ( and needed) information.

Now that it's been brought to my attention, you're right about getting more information being better without voice raising or anger. I was going for the researcher being firm in getting critical information but I think I went too far. Thanks for this!

I've added a new addendum to the draft. It describes Investigation-XXXX and an incident that occurred there. Please tell me if it adds to the article, if it needs to be changed, or if it should be removed completely. Chances are I have a lot of stuff in there that could be written better to make it sound more clinical and professional. Anything helps. Thanks!